Editorial Policy
The rules we hold ourselves to, written so a reader can hold us to them as well.
An editorial policy is only worth publishing if it contains commitments a reader could catch us breaking. These do.
1. Every figure is attributed or derived in view
A number on this site is either quoted from a named source with a link, or computed from such numbers with every arithmetic step shown in a box on the page. There is no third category. If you find a figure here that is neither attributed nor shown as arithmetic, that is a defect and we want to hear about it.
2. We do not fill gaps with estimates
When a manufacturer does not publish a specification, we report the absence. Three of the nine fixtures we cover publish no photon output figure at all. You will not find a PPFD for a Barrina strip anywhere on this site, because Barrina has never published one, and an invented figure would be worse than no figure — it would be a number that looks checkable and is not.
3. We have not tested anything, and we say so on every page
Not in a footer disclaimer. On the page, above the picks, on every page that recommends a fixture. We have no lab, no quantum sensor and no owned units. Claiming hands-on testing we have not done would be the single easiest thing for a competitor to disprove, and the single fastest way to deserve losing a reader.
4. No fabricated reviews, ratings or review counts
There are none on this site — not ours, not aggregated, not invented to fill a layout. We also do not publish a numeric editorial score dressed up as a product review rating, and our structured data carries no review or rating markup for the same reason: a score we assigned is our opinion, and marking it up as a review would misrepresent it to search engines and to readers.
5. No price we cannot verify at the moment you load the page
Prices come from a live data layer with a freshness limit, or the button reads “check price” instead. A stale price beside a buy button is a small repeated lie in the most commercially sensitive place on the page.
6. Commission does not influence rankings
We earn affiliate commission — the full arrangement is on the affiliate disclosure page. What it does not do is order the lists. The ranking criteria, in order, are published on the methodology page: geometry, verifiability, efficacy, and fitness for a home grower.
The observable evidence for this claim is that our recommendations repeatedly work against conversion — we recommend a fixture while stating that nothing about its output can be verified, and we tell readers when a light they are considering is more than they need.
7. Corrections are visible
| What is wrong | What we do |
|---|---|
| A computed figure is wrong | Correct it, and note the correction and its date on the page |
| A source now publishes a figure we reported as missing | Update the page and change the 'not published' statement |
| A manufacturer has revised the specification | Update the figure and the consultation date on the source |
| A recommendation no longer holds | Change it, and say in the text that it changed and why |
| A typo or a broken link | Fix it silently; nothing turns on it |
Quietly editing a page after getting a number wrong would undercut the only thing this site claims for itself, which is that the arithmetic can be checked. Being answerable when a check fails is part of the same commitment.
8. Sources carry consultation dates
Every source in a sources block shows the date we consulted it. Manufacturers revise product pages without notice, so a specification quoted from a page has an age, and you should be able to see it.
Two figures are re-sourced on a schedule rather than left to age: the US residential electricity rate, which is re-checked annually against the Energy Information Administration’s published data, and the manufacturer specifications themselves.
9. Who writes this
One author, named on the about page, described by interest rather than by credential, because the honest description is the one that stays true. No invented certifications, no expert panel that does not exist, and no “medically reviewed by” line for a subject that has no medical reviewer.
10. Where AI fits
Drafting and editing on this site involve automated tools. What those tools are never permitted to do is supply a fact. Every specification traces to a linked manufacturer page or a named publication; every computed figure has its arithmetic shown so it can be re-run. A number that cannot be traced to one of those does not go on the site, whatever produced the sentence around it.
Holding us to it
If we have broken any of the above, that is worth telling us about: info@sproutandspectrum.com, or via the contact page. Sprout & Spectrum is published by Slate Mill Group.